CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB217F55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } Communicated on 4 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56896/17 Cornelis Jacobus Joseph LAURIJSEN against the Netherlands and 4 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged breach of the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly. In July 2011, the applicants were arrested whilst participating in a gathering of about 150 persons who had blockaded a road in central Amsterdam, in front of a squatted building which they knew was going to be cleared by police that day. They were subsequently found guilty of having acted contrary to section 2.2 of the Amsterdam by-law ( APV ) and sentenced to pay a fine (100 euros). The Regional Court found that the applicants had committed one of the offences they had been charged with. It noted, however, that the reproached act could only constitute a criminal offence in respect of gatherings that did not fall within the scope of the Public Manifestations Act ( Wet Openbare Manifestaties ; “WOM”). Considering that there had not been a threat of disorder at the beginning, the Regional Court held that the gathering, in its early stages, fell within the scope of the WOM. The Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion. It considered that it had been the intention of the organisers and participants from the outset to seek a confrontation with the special operations unit and physically to prevent the clearing of the squat. As such, the gathering had not been a manifestation within the meaning of the WOM and the proven acts constituted criminal offences. The Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal in cassation, adding that Article 11 of the Convention did not lead to a different conclusion since that provision did not extend to the protection of “a demonstration where the organisers and participants have violent intentions”. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ arrest and subsequent conviction? In particular, can the gathering be qualified as a peaceful assembly within the meaning of that provision ( Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany , nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 103, 1 December 2011, and Primov and others v. Russia , no.   17391/06, § 155, 12 June 2014, and Kudrevičius and others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 92-99, 15 October 2015)?   2.     If it were to be assumed that Article 11 was applicable, did the interference prescribed by law show a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2 ( Kudrevičius and others v. Lithuania [GC], cited above, §§ 108-110 and §§ 142-160)?     APPENDIX     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 56896/17 Laurijsen v. the Netherlands 31/07/2017 Cornelis Jacobus Joseph LAURIJSEN 1955 Amsterdam Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK 2 56910/17 Springer v. the Netherlands 31/07/2017 Wendy SPRINGER 1987 Amsterdam Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK 3 56914/17 van Oostrum v. the Netherlands 31/07/2017 Nicky VAN OOSTRUM 1984 Amsterdam Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK 4 56917/17 Koenen v. the Netherlands 24/07/2017 Rosa Annemarie Theadora KOENEN 1988 Den Dolder Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK 5 57307/17 Segal v. the Netherlands 31/07/2017 Anat SEGAL 1985 Amsterdam Dutch Willem Hendrik JEBBINK